I have a question. Is the view 'there is no self' also a self-identity view? Specifically, does holding such a view prevent the attainment of stream-entry?

MN2 wrote:"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

From this it follows that the view 'there is no self' prevents the attainment of the Arahant state. However, the 'fetter of views' referred in MN2 does not occur in the list of the 10 fetters:

AN10.13 wrote:"There are these ten fetters. Which ten? Five lower fetters & five higher fetters. And which are the five lower fetters? Self-identity views, uncertainty, grasping at precepts & practices, sensual desire, & ill will. These are the five lower fetters. And which are the five higher fetters? Passion for form, passion for what is formless, conceit, restlessness, & ignorance. These are the five higher fetters. And these are the ten fetters."

The closest fetter is 'self-identity views'. Is this the fetter referred to in MN2? If so, it seems to me that even stream-entry can't be attained while holding the view 'there is no self', since this is one of the 3 fetters whose abandoning leads to stream-entry.

Quote: "I have a question. Is the view 'there is no self' also a self-identity view? Specifically, does holding such a view prevent the attainment of stream-entry?"

Thanissaro Bhikkhu appears to think that the view 'there is no self' is as bad as the view 'there is a self'. This is his interpretation of the Nikaya teachings which are somewhat obscure on many of these points.

You ask about the view 'there is no self' and you quote MN 2, but does this sutta mention such a view? Let us look at Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation:

"When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view 'self exists for me' arises in him as true and established; or the view 'no self exists for me' arises in him as true and established; or the view ..."

Why does Thanissaro omit the quotation marks which make clear the actual view? The view 'no self exists for me' is almost a self-contradictory view.

Even if it was translated as 'I have no self' it would still be a problem. The conceit 'I am' must also be eliminated. So an Arahant would not say 'I have no self'.

But this issue is complicated by a lack of clarity on many points.

1. What exactly is a view?

2. What exactly is 'self-identity view'?

3. What is the 'fetter of views'?

4. The Buddha does say 'I' in some passages, this is understood as 'conventional speech'.

Does removing the view of self mean that one must have the view of no-self?

How do you know what an arahant would or would not say? what are you basing this on? Is this just conjecture?

"When you meditate, don't send your mind outside. Don't fasten onto any knowledge at all. Whatever knowledge you've gained from books or teachers, don't bring it in to complicate things. Cut away all preoccupations, and then as you meditate let all your knowledge come from what's going on in the mind. When the mind is quiet, you'll know it for yourself. But you have to keep meditating a lot. When the time comes for things to develop, they'll develop on their own. Whatever you know, have it come from your own mind.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... eleft.html

There is a slight and nuanced difference between the view "there is no self" and the views reported in MN 2. In MN 2, what underlies the views is still the subtle reference point of "I" or "me". Something is still being appropriated or clung to as identity/sakkāya.

You can therefore find a variation to this subtle clinging in AN 10.3, under "conceit", traditionally explained in several permutation, but basically as under the impulse to think in terms of "I am". See - viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11869&start=40#p181001

Hi vinasp

Why does Thanissaro omit the quotation marks which make clear the actual view?The view 'no self exists for me' is almost a self-contradictory view.

You are correct to point out that the translation omitted the iti/quotation marks. However, since there is a verb standing in relation to a noun functioning as an object in the clause, the iti clitic can function in this case as a subject complementiser. In English, the iti clitic's function is performed by "that". Ven T's translation is correct, although I do prefer BB's convention of not using English complementisers, since the visibility of a Pali clitic has other useful purposes.